I can never understand what a bloke gets out of cutting off an elephant tail ( or any of the other gross things they do and call it hunting ) and posing with it for a picture .

Does it make them feel ????

1. Clever.

2. Powerful.

3. Masculine .

4. Talented.

5. Desirable.

Because if that is the case , most people view them as none of those. They just view them as dick heads with small minds and even smaller bits. He is gripping on that tail as if he thinks its a replica of his no doubt rather small appendage.

it sickens me, cannot watch wildlife documentaries because there is always something about dwindling numbers.

Chinese are the worst for their mad obsession with ivory and natural "health remedies"

I believe 150,000 elephants were killed in 2012, sickens me

This Chinese belief of parts of animals being magical sickens me, too, Whale.

These people are supposed to be smart people, but if you look at these sick beliefs they have, they are not very smart at all.

If every single one of us who cares about this just does one small thing to help prevent the needless slaughter, even just write a letter, speak out loud, we can only hope to make some progress.

Look at the plight of the Snowy Brumbies. The greenies were all up for shooting them, not just some but all, but so many ordinary Australians who dont even know which end eats and which end poops , stood up, signed up, spoke up, and said NO.

They have been reprieved and its now looking at them being heritage listed. So at least they wont be shot out.

And there is a wonderful initiative in the Barrington Tops, saving the Tasmanian Devil . Breeding up disease free devils for the future, all done with donations from people, and not the Govnt.

Lets hope more and more people come on board for all the animals, before its too late.

And lets hope Karma visits the likes of the bloke holding the tail, and all those other big brave people who kill animals for fun.

Zimbabwe: Bow Hunting - Zimbabwe's Great Wildlife Dilemma

A
worsening foreign currency crisis has armed safari operators with the
ammunition they desperately needed to build a case for reintroduction of
the bow hunting sport in Zimbabwe.

The sport,
borrowing from ancient forms of hunting game, came to an abrupt end
following the killing of Cecil the lion in July 2015.

The famous feline was first wounded with an arrow shot by recreational big-game hunter, American dentist Charles Palmer.

The lion was then
killed with a rifle, approximately 40 hours later on 1 July 2015,
triggering a loud global outcry from animal rights groups.

Government reacted by immediately banning bow hunting.

Hunters then
migrated to South Africa, which, however, banned the sport last year,
forcing cash-rich American bow sport hunters to seek a return back to
the Zimbabwean forests.

And for
cash-starved Zimbabwe, the lure of greenbacks is tempting, but
conservationists are refusing to give in and a battle is looming.

Zimbabwe is one of
only four countries in the world where any form of lion hunting is still
permitted under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES).

The country also offers opportunities for hunting of big game like elephants and buffalo.

While there is nothing wrong with hunting, it is the undeveloped type of hunting that is raising consternation.

Bow hunting is the
practice of hunting game by archery, in which hunters typically shoot
several arrows to trees while tracking their quarry.

Once an animal happens to stray within range, hunters then set off the arrows.

Quick kills are rare, and animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when the hunters only injure and fail to kill them.

Local safari
operators cannot, however, wait to cash in on the sport, which they say
has potential to bring in at least $5 million revenue every year.

Conservationists
contend that more effort should be made to preserve Zimbabwe's rich
wildlife diversity which attracts game viewing tourists from all over
the world.

The question being
asked is: Should government prioritise the quick gains of bow hunting
over long term benefits of game viewing tourism?

Like so many hot button issues, the answer to the question depends on who is asked.

On the one hand,
some say nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just
about every animal species has been either predator or prey at some
point in its evolution.

Ironically, hunting
has wiped out many animal species, while at the same time helping to
cull some wild animals that have been allowed to freely reproduce beyond
the environment's carrying capacity.

Using this argument, the country's safari operators may just have a compelling case.

For instance, the
American bow hunters currently knocking on the country's doors are
specifically targeting the buffaloes, elephants and lions, which are
said to be off CITES red list in the country.

Elephants and
buffaloes, for example, still roam the wild in great numbers in
Zimbabwe, and have often posed danger to local communities and destroyed
crops.

On the other hand,
environmental and animal advocates see bow hunting as barbaric, arguing
that it is morally wrong to kill animals just for the fun of it.

Safari Operators
Association of Zimbabwe president, Emmanuel Fundira, is encouraging
government to review the blanket ban on bow hunting as a sport, which he
says would open "an exciting period for the safari industry at a time
when other parts of the economy are in crisis".

He said there was huge earning potential for the country if it allowed bow hunting to resume.

"It is therefore my
fervent hope and belief that the regulators will consider helping us
capture this growing market to the best interest of economic
development," Fundira said.

Bow hunting grew in the 1960s in the United States when conservation lobbyists started discouraging gun hunting.

Mainly limited to hunting for food, the practice was popularised as a sport in the 1980s.

Overall, it was a pastime for older men, but there has been growing interest now among the affluent young generation.

But to the conservationists and animal rights activists, frivolous killing cannot be ethical, let alone be termed a sport.

They have declared
that the role of hunting has always been to obtain protein for some
populations living in areas infested with wild animals.

However, today the
thrill of slaying mighty big mammals like the buffalo, elephant and lion
that can be skinned and their hides hung on the wall of the basements
of living rooms has brought a whole new dimension to the practice of
hunting.

Considering how
desperate the Zimbabwean government is at the moment in its search for
liquidity, there is every reason to believe that conservationists might
lose this fight.

He said despite
hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance,
hunters' license fees are used to "manipulate a few game species into
overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game
species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic
integrity and ecological balance".

The same sentiments
were echoed by another American group known as the People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is vehemently opposed to the
sport.

PETA is the world's largest animal rights group with over 6,5 million members and supporters.

"Hunting might have
been necessary for human survival in prehistoric times, but today most
hunters stalk and kill animals merely for the thrill of it, not out of
necessity. This unnecessary, violent form of 'entertainment' rips animal
families apart and leaves countless animals orphaned or badly injured
when hunters miss their targets," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said.

Local animal rights
organisation, the Veterinarians for Animal Welfare of Zimbabwe (VAWZ),
said it was opposed to bow hunting because of the pain it inflicts on
animals.

"Hunting is often
called a sport as a way to pass off a cruel, needless killing spree as a
socially acceptable, wholesome activity. However, sports involve
competition between two consenting parties and the mediation of a
referee. And no sport ends with the deliberate death of one unwilling
participant," said VAWZ animal welfare officer, Mel Hood.

While the country's
safari operators argue that controlled hunting was necessary to keep
herds and pride populations within healthy sizes, conservationists argue
that nature had its own way of delicately balancing ecosystems thereby
naturally ensuring the survival of most species.

While natural
predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and
weakest individuals, hunters strive to kill animals they would like to
hang over the fireplace. And these usually are the largest, most robust
animals, which are, however, critical in keeping the gene pool strong.

"If communities
decide that buffalo herds must be managed, it is wrong to reduce the
taking of animal life to a recreational activity for bow hunting
enthusiasts. Instead, a truly humane solution must be found, whether
that solution is to hire professional sharpshooters to observe the herd,
taking the old and infirm, or to implement an immune-contraception
program for the herd," says Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals general manager, Mark Beru.

As a signatory to
the International Convention on Biodiversity a multilateral treaty
signed at the United Nations Rio Earth summit of 1992 -- Zimbabwe, which
has a commitment to the sustainable use of its natural resources, finds
itself in a tight corner over bow hunting.

Experience is something you gain a few minutes after you could have used it!

I see that the son of Cecil the Lion, shot by that crazy yank dentist in Africa, has himself been dispatched by another one of these deplorable trophy hunters. As the Great Oscar Wilde said of fox hunters......" the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible."

Op-Ed: South Africa opens the door to the sale of wildlife parts

By Don Pinnock

There’s a thin line between the marketing of, and
the genuine conservation of, wildlife. In the past few weeks that line
was definitively crossed by the South African Department of
Environmental Affairs. By DON PINNOCK.

Ignoring
the findings of environmental organisations, its contractual compliance
with CITES, a worldwide online petition and its own strategic plan for
rhinos, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)
is about to open the door to the commodification of rhino horn. This
follows the permitting of 800 lion skeletons a year to be exported for
fake tiger-bone wine and regulations for the hunting of leopards as soon
as the present year-long moratorium is lifted.

There
is also an ongoing political spat concerning the “donation” of
R100-million worth of animals from North West Province Parks to private
individuals. The result of these moves means a good deal of money for
well-placed individuals in the wildlife business.

Let’s
start with rhinos. Last year, following the findings of a committee of
inquiry into the feasibility of South Africa trading in rhino horn, the
government announced that it was not in favour of this trade. Its
position was reinforced at the CITES CoP17 meeting in Gauteng late last
year where it was clear that a large majority of member states were
against legalising the trade. The voting was 100 against, 26 in favour,
with 17 abstentions on a proposal by Swaziland.

Last
year the South African ban on rhino horn trade was challenged by
private sector rhino breeders, who won on a technicality. The
Environment Minister, Edna Molewa, took the result on appeal to the
Constitutional Court and there it languished.

Photo by Don Pinnock.

Then,
on February 8, the South African government did a complete about-turn,
announcing new draft regulations to permit legal internal trade in rhino
horn and setting out conditions favourable for its export. If passed,
each person will be able to buy, own, sell or export two rhino horns.
The new regulations will render Molewa’s appeal redundant and is a total
capitulation to the breeders. The public have 30 days from date of the
gazette to make representations or objections.

But
if it’s a capitulation, it’s been carefully framed. It brackets both
black and white rhinos, though they have a different conservation
status, and would permit the sale of two horns per person and their
export by locals or foreigners as long as the conduit is OR Tambo
Airport. It requires a freight agent and a raft of DNA, microchip and
document checking which the DEA has no hope of administering. It will
simply open the gate on wholesale laundering of poached horn by
syndicates well versed in getting greedy officials onside.

You’d
imagine the proposal would be related to hunting trophies, but though
trophies are passingly mentioned, the proposal deals almost exclusively
with horn as a commodity in itself and even discusses horn shavings,
which have nothing to do with trophies.

Molewa
seems unsure about how to explain the swerve to horn trade. She
scheduled a briefing about it in Cape Town last week, changed it to
Gauteng, then cancelled it altogether.

Photo by Don Pinnock.

DEA biodiversity director Thea Carroll confused the matter even further. She told Chris Barron of the Sunday Times
that the department’s decision was that a commercial trade in rhino
horn “will not be introduced”. But a few questions further she said the
DEA’s position was “to allow for domestic trade in rhino horn and to
regulate that trade in rhino horn”. Excuse me?

The public is left with a number of questions:

Who did the minister consult in drawing up the draft regulations and how did she arrive at a figure of two horns per person?

How will an already stretched and under-funded regulatory and policing force cope with monitoring internal trade?

How will she ensure that the horns will not enter the illegal international markets?

And
is this the first step towards South Africa putting forward a proposal
for full international trade in rhino horn at the next CITES conference
in 2019?

According to environmentalist Ian Michler, “There
is no realistic way of ensuring that the two horns per person do not
end up being traded. The follow-up regarding trophy horns taken to other
countries has been pathetic.

“I
don’t think any country, including the US, has ever systematically
followed up on trophy hunters who have exported legally hunted horn out
of South Africa to check that they still have them and have not sold
them on. We should demand that the Minister present evidence of this
follow-up and not just say that it’s happened.”

There’s
another problem with the proposal. It includes black rhinos in its
scope, but these are listed as Appendix 1 by CITES so they (or parts of
them) may not be traded internationally. But the DEA regulations would
permit sale of their horns internally which, realistically, means
exporters are sure to cheat because only a DNA test can tell the
difference.

All
this is hot on the heels of another startling proposal by the DEA: the
sale of lion bones for the manufacture of fake tiger-bone wine. In a
move clearly supporting the canned lion hunting industry, the DEA plans
to permit the annual export of 800 skeletons for this purpose. It’s a
lifeline to an increasingly discredited lion hunting industry that’s
hurting following a US ban on the import of trophies from the country.

The
move has come under fire from a wide array of local and international
environmental organisations and follows an ongoing controversy about
South Africa’s lion breeding industry that promotes cub petting, lion
walks, canned lion hunting and the supply of lion body parts.

“The
decision is misguided and shameful,” said Audrey Delsink, Africa’s
director of the Humaine Society International. “Breeding captive lions
is not only cruel and contrary to the global shift against captive
wildlife, but is a potential threat to wild lions.”

Pippa Hankinson, the producer of the film Blood Lions, said the
quota appears to lack the requisite scientific basis and was arrived at
without consideration of proper welfare or conservation protocols.
There was no formal document to support how the quota of 800 skeletons was arrived at or how it would be enforced.

According to Michelle Pickover of the EMS Foundation, there
should be a moratorium on issuing any wildlife export permits because
of the country’s extremely poor legislative and enforcement issues.

“The
DEA does not know how the lion industry operates, who the breeders or
bone traders are, how many lions are in the industry and how many
‘facilities’ there are.

“They leave this totally up to the industry itself. So it’s in essence secret and self-policed. There is also no transparency and this situation is worsened by massive corruption.”

For
the DEA to think that farmed wildlife sale has no impact on those truly
wild, it would have to ignore the fact that stimulating what are almost
limitless Asian markets through the sale of limited goods soon bleeds
into illegal procurement through poaching.

The
leopard issue is more nuanced but equally worrying. There was
celebration among environmental conservationists and no doubt grumbling
among many farmers and hunters when the DEA accepted the negative
non-detrimental finding (meaning it found it detrimental) to hunt
leopards this year. But this was followed by legislation detailing how,
when and where to hunt them as soon as the ban is lifted.

It’s
worth stepping back from this legislative flurry and asking what’s
going on here? A government department tasked with the protection of the
environment appears to be engaged in assisting wealthy people to sell
it bit by bit. Its reasoning appears to be its increasingly
market-driven interpretation of sustainability, assisted, no doubt, by
an industry keen to sell its wares. The core of the problem is an
ambiguity in the definition in the Constitution.

While
the Constitution states that citizens and future generations have the
right to an environment protected from environmental degredation, it
also promotes the “ecologically sustainable development and use of
natural resources”.

The
former implies sustainable habitat protection in and of itself, the
latter implies sustainablity for human use. With regard to protection of
a natural geographical area or to a wild species, they are not
compatible.

Sustainable
habitat protection recognises that life is a set of relationships that,
over time, is self-regulating and that these relationships – in place
and over time – are what it’s important to sustain as part or the fabric
of life on this planet. This is the logic of true conservation, of wild
parks left as much as possible to their own internal logic with minimal
human interference.

Sustainable
use is about the maximum you can crop without collapsing a system,
species or herd. It’s essentially a farming concept applied to wildlife.

The
DEA’s logic on the use of rhinos, lions, leopards or essentially
anything under its protection is that these species only matter to the
extent that they are useful to humans.

By
this ethic, individual animals have no moral worth other than in terms
of the money we can gain from their lives and their death.
Sustainability is only about ensuring there will be species in the
future that we can exploit.

Between
legislative direction and eventual outcome, of course, lies the shadow.
Sustainable use of high-value objects is soon undermined by a
combination of oversight ineptitude, huge profits and a sophisticated
criminal underworld alert to any gaps or weaknesses.

Poached
rhino horn will soon sidle into legitimate sales, legitimate trophies
will rematerialise in the East as high-priced products, lion skeleton
quotas will be overtopped, CITES permits will be forged, officials will
be bribed, leopard skins will become Shembe cloaks or floor mats in
wealthy pads, and ivory poachers will benefit from shifty transit
systems spiriting wildlife parts out of the country. All under the
unbrella of sustainable use.

The
question we are left with is why our environmental protection agency
has increasingly shifted over into a market-enabling one. There are
those who would seek the cause in brown envelopes passed beneath the
table, but I suspect it’s a genuine belief by the DEA of the second
interpretation of the constitutional imperative – sustainablity for
human use.

But
if this is so, it needs to think deeply about who makes money out of
rhino horn, lion skin or leopard pelt sales and vastly expensive hunts.
It is certainly not “the people” defined in the Constitution. The
biologist Ed Wilson warned us that “in the end, success or failure will
come down to an ethical decision, one on which those now living will be
judged for generations to come”.

That
judgement, he added, may not be a positive one: “We have created a Star
Wars civilisation with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions and
godlike technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the
mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of
life.”

It’s
now too late for concerned citizens to stop the lion bone regulations,
but there are a few days left to object to the sale of rhino horn. It
seems a good call. DM

Experience is something you gain a few minutes after you could have used it!

How big game hunting is dividing southern Africa

Drifting down the Zambezi in Zimbabwe, I overheard two American men swapping hunting stories.

"First shot got him in the shoulder," a
white man in his late sixties explained to his friend. "Second hit him
right in the side of the head!" Pointing at his temple, he passed his
phone with a picture. The animal in question was a dead crocodile.

Crocodiles are easy to find on this part
of the Zambezi: lying in the sun on the banks of the river, boats can
float just a few feet away. And given that they are motionless for most
of the time, not hard to shoot, I imagine.

The second American showed his pal a
picture of a Cape Buffalo he had killed, and planned to have shoulder
mounted. He complained he couldn't afford the $19,000 (£14,500) Zimbabwe
demands for the licence to kill an elephant. His buffalo cost him
$8,000 (£6,100).

"Are they saying an elephant is worth
more than two buffalo?" he lamented. "I saw hundreds of elephants today.
Far too many. You have to see it here to realise. In California they
are saying these animals are endangered!"

The first man's wife then talked of the
thrill she gets at the kill, discussing how different calibres of bullet
explode the vital organs of African wildlife. I left to look at the
hippos watching from the river.

High profile supporters

The corporate values of family brand
Arsenal do not sit easily with pay-to-view videos of hunters shooting
animals for fun, and after a couple of days of hostile publicity,
Kroenke ordered his channel to stop showing the killing of some big
game.

But both sides in the hunting debate claim they are the true guardians of animal welfare.

Supporters of African trophy hunting,
including some in very high places - two of President Trump's sons are
avid big game hunters - argue that a ban on hunting would harm wildlife
and local people.

It would stop much needed revenue
reaching some of Africa's poorest communities, discourage conservation
and cut funds for wildlife management that would make it easier for
poachers to operate, they say.

Opponents counter that little of the profit
from trophy hunting money ends up in the communities where it takes
place. They say poachers use legal hunting as cover for their illegal
activities, and argue that there are more efficient and humane ways to
support the welfare of southern Africa's animals and people.

I was travelling in Zimbabwe and
neighbouring Botswana last month - two countries with opposing policies
towards big game hunters. Hunting is still big business in Zimbabwe, as
the rich Americans on the Zambezi demonstrate, but
since 2014 it has been completely banned in Botswana
.

Majestic animals

The difference in approach between
Botswana and its neighbours - South Africa, Namibia and Zambia also
allow trophy hunting - was brought dramatically home to me in the
country's glorious Chobe National Park.

In the late afternoon, I watched a herd
of around 600 Cape Buffalo snake its way down to the Chobe River that
marks the boundary with Namibia. It was mesmerising to see these
majestic animals following each other, nose to tail, across the water.

Image caption
Cape Buffalo cross the Chobe River from Botswana into Namibia where hunters are waiting

Then my guide pointed out two vehicles on the
horizon, across the river. "Hunters," he explained, simply. Through the
binoculars we could see six men with rifles. Apparently oblivious to
the risk, the buffalo continued to cross the border towards them. Later,
shots would be heard.

In a move interpreted as a direct
challenge to the wildlife policies of other southern African nations,
Botswana's President Ian Khama is marching his country towards a new
model of African tourism: "low impact/high value".

Botswana believes that by protecting its
animals and minimising humankind's footprint on the natural world, it
can turn the country into an exclusive tourist destination that brings
in far more than it loses from the ban on hunting.

Hostile environment

Botswana is home to more than a third of
Africa's dwindling elephant population, and - since the hunting ban -
these intelligent animals have increasingly sought refuge there.

The concentration of elephants is a huge
draw for tourists but, as predicted by opponents of the ban, it is also a
huge temptation for less scrupulous hunters and poachers.

Botswana's answer is to make the country a hostile environment for those who want to harm the wildlife.

Military bases have been moved to the
borders of the national parks. Armed patrols on foot and in the air are
ready, if necessary, to kill people coming to kill animals. Some
poachers have been shot dead.

The hunting ban doesn't just apply to rich trophy hunters.

It also limits or outlaws the shooting of
game by local people for food or to protect crops and livestock. The
Botswana government believes if there is any legal shooting of animals,
the big poaching syndicates and illegal hunting operations will use that
as cover for their activities.

In Mabele village, close to the Namibian
border, I watched a man mixing an extraordinary cocktail: crushed
tabasco chillies, elephant dung and engine oil. With a flourish he set
the contents on fire and stood back to admire his handiwork.

"That is supposed to stop an elephant trampling my crops," Chibeya Longwani told me, pointing at the ash in the tin.

Compensation

He spread it along the sides of his
field, beside plastic chairs, broken electric fans and beer crates, as
instructed by the Ministry of Agriculture.

"They said that bees stop elephants too,"
Mr Longwani said. "But they don't have the boxes at the moment." His
frustration was obvious.

As well as advice on deterring elephants,
farmers can claim compensation from the government if wild game does
damage property. But if they kill the animals, they are likely to get
nothing.

Image caption
Plastic refuse is used to try and deter elephants from farmland

To police the new approach, the Department of
Wildlife and National Parks has recruited an army of Special Wildlife
Scouts, operating in rural villages. Their job, for example, includes
ensuring families don't take more than the five guinea fowl they are
allowed each day, and that farmers are honest in their compensation
claims.

It is a nationwide exercise in social
engineering - trying to change the ancient relationship between the
rural population and the wild animals around them. The government
believes the long-term rewards justify the rules. Many farmers remain
unconvinced.

For those tourists coming to Botswana
with cameras rather than guns though, the policies have created an
utterly captivating wild landscape teeming with amazing African animals
and birds. And "elite travellers" are prepared to pay big money for the
privilege of seeing it.

Anti-poaching initiatives

During the high season, a single room in
one of the most exclusive lodges on the Okovango Delta can cost more
than $5,000 (£3,830) a night, equivalent to the price of a Namibian
licence to shoot a single leopard.

Many tourist lodge operators work in
partnership with local villages. I encountered one lodge where 10% of
the business turnover will soon go to the community nearby. Villagers
often have a direct say in development plans.

Image copyright
Paula French

Image caption
There was a huge backlash after the much-loved Zimbabwean lion Cecil was killed in 2015

International tourism is expected to bring in
$210m (£160m) to Botswana this year, rising to $370m (£280) by 2021 -
more than trophy hunters spend across the whole of southern Africa.

Many in Zimbabwe, by contrast, see
hunting as an inextricable part of Africa's cultural heritage, believing
that, if done sustainably and responsibly, it can be a valuable
addition to the region's economy and wildlife management.

The walking guides who take tourists into
the bush there aren't allowed to operate until they have passed a state
exam that includes shooting an elephant and a buffalo. I asked one
guide how he had felt about doing it. "It depends if you like hunting,"
was his enigmatic reply.

The Zimbabwean government argues that 75%
of proceeds from trophy hunting goes towards wildlife preservation and
anti-poaching initiatives.

Toxic impact

The recent Great Elephant Census project
suggests Zimbabwe's elephant population has fallen 11% in a decade,
with poaching and illegal hunting threatening to wipe out whole herds in
parts of the country.

I used to feel sorry for the big cats until I saw a Buffalo being eaten alive by a pride of Lions. That's natures way I expect but so is Humans knocking a few off as practice for North Koreas masses when the time comes. Most of Australia wouldn't know how to aim a gun so we are easy prey for any invader. ( unlike WW2 , The population were good marksmen)

Most of Australia wouldn't know how to aim a gun so we are easy prey for any invader. ( unlike WW2 , The population were good marksmen)

Not in Darwin, in Feb '42 apparently. The seeming imminence of a Jap invasion caused a civilian bug-out which left only a few looters in town, and a smattering of servicemen with precious little arms and ammunition, guarding the beaches. No weekend hunters in sight !

I know in Botswana, at every border post they have huge posters everywhere , saying that our wildlife is our future. Our wildlife is our road to prosperity.As we travelled around we used to see all these high wire fences topped by barbed. Private game reserves. Some for hunting. Potted lion our guide called it. They just breed the animal and then the hunter comes in and shoots it. SICK. No sport,,,just sit and wait until the lion,,or whatever ,,walks past about 50 mtrs away, and blast it. What do they get out of that ??Others were for game viewing only.Our guide had been a hunter guide as a young bloke. He is now into conservation. I ask him about Cecil. He said the hunter in charge deliberatley lured Cecil out of the park,,,he set his rich American up just to wait for Cecil to come into view, while he went and lured him out with a food trail. Corruption in those countries is just so bad its disgusting. Anything that will get the rich richer is a go-er. We were told the money we think goes to helping kids, when we donate, those kids would be lucky if they ever saw $1 in $50. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.As to poachers. OMG. I thought they crawled in thru fences at night. Not so. They drive in like ordinary tourists,,,guns in the boot,,,they go out looking around like tourists, and pick their animal and go back at night, shoot it, take the bit they want in the car boot, and drive out of the park the next day. If they waste time on a de horned rhino, they kill it anyway, so they dont waste time on it again !!!!When we were in Etosha there was a huge search going on , of all cars, at the gates , with sniffer dogs. Our guide said there must have been some sort of tip off or hint or something, and they believed poachers were moving in.In Chobe there was a huge army camp on the river bank just near the big population of elephants. They told us they guard the elephants at all time and they shoot to kill, no questions ask. Lets hope Botswana hold strong. Without the wildlife, tourists wont go to that dry dusty dreary place, so they better wise up.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum